AFTER a month of high drama, come tomorrow, either Spain, purveyors of a mesmerising possession style firmly rooted in magical touch control, or the more workman-like yet attractive Netherlands, will emerge as winners of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

For either of the two finalists, victory will be especially sweet since neither has ever won the premier title in world football. Further, both down the decades have been categorised as the great underachievers in World Cup tournaments.

In fact, not since 1978 when the Netherlands lost to hosts Argentina have two teams without a World Cup title to their name, met in the final. The victor will become only the eighth FIFA World Cup champion in a tournament that dates back to 1930.

For the Netherlands the title will mean glory at the third try, since they were beaten finalists twice before — back in 1974 in West Germany and in 1978. For Spain, the impressive record of their top club teams Barcelona and Real Madrid notwithstanding, the quarter-finals was their previous best.

All told, this has been a tournament to savour. Despite the numerous complaints about the quality of the Jabulani ball being used, football purists have been mostly satisfied with the standard of play.

The elimination of defending champions Italy and France, the beaten finalists from four years ago at the group stage stood out, as did the defeat of Brazil by the Netherlands at the quarter-finals.

For many football lovers there was genuine sadness with the elimination of Ghana — the only African nation to advance beyond the Group stage — by Uruguay in the quarter-finals.

Readers will recall that in the last seconds of the 30-minute extra time with the teams locked at 1-1, a goalbound header was slapped away from goal by Uruguayan Luis Suarez.

Guided by the laws of the game, the referee red carded Suarez and pointed to the penalty spot. However, Asamoah Gyan missed the penalty shot — the final kick of open play — to set up a penalty shoot out, which the Uruguayans eventually won.

We empathise with those who argue that the incident presents a strong case for the FIFA to so amend its laws to allow the referee to award a goal rather than a penalty in such circumstances. Surely, justice would then have been done in every respect.

We are similarly intrigued by debate about the use of available video replay technology.

With Germany leading England 2-1 in their Round of Sixteen game, close to the half-time break a Frank Lampard shot thundered off the underside of the bar and bounced well over the goal line. Television replays soon confirmed what for many was immediately obvious — that the goal should have been allowed. But match officials missed the call and waved play on. England, who would then have tied the game 2-2, subsequently lost 4-1 and were understandably incensed.

In the second instance, goals involving Argentina’s Tevez and Brazil’s Fabiano should have been disallowed because the scorers were well offside.

Reluctant to reduce the “human factor” in match officiating, FIFA seems disinclined to go the route of video replay technology to deal with such contentious issues. Rather, there is talk of introducing two more officials, stationed at either end of the field to assist.

This will no doubt help, but we suspect the argument for technology will not abate. Over time, FIFA will discover, as have administrators in other professional sports, that ultimately technology will prevail.